Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

I especially related to the part of the video where he talks about starting at the point of saying "I don't know" and then asking questions. I began my journey out of the Christian faith with "asking questions" and then diligently seeking their answers with an open mind.

So-called "knowledge" that is proven false never was really knowledge.

This is the central problem of epistemology. What is knowledge? Many philosophers like the definition "justified true belief". This definition defines knowledge as a kind of belief. And this brings us back to the central point of the video which defines "faith" as "pretending to know things you don't know."

The problem with the definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" centers on the problem of justification. Religious faith does away with this in one fell swoop, by asserting that all you must do is "believe" without any evidence of any kind. They might pretend to base their beliefs on evidence, but that's not really true.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

So-called "knowledge" that is proven false never was really knowledge.

This is the central problem of epistemology. What is knowledge? Many philosophers like the definition "justified true belief". This definition defines knowledge as a kind of belief. And this brings us back to the central point of the video which defines "faith" as "pretending to know things you don't know."

The problem with the definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" centers on the problem of justification. Religious faith does away with this in one fell swoop, by asserting that all you must do is "believe" without any evidence of any kind. They might pretend to base their beliefs on evidence, but that's not really true.

There is some professor physics, he comes from the Netherlands but lives in America, who has 100 % trust in physical laws. To demonstrate his faith he does many seemingly dangerous tests, like letting go from his hands from before his head a leaden ball that hangs on a rope from the ceiling, lke a giant pendulum. He just remains quietly standing on his spot while the ball comes pendels back to him with great velocity.

There is some professor physics, he comes from the Netherlands but lives in America, who has 100 % trust in physical laws. To demonstrate his faith he does many seemingly dangerous tests, like letting go from his hands from before his head a leaden ball that hangs on a rope from the ceiling, lke a giant pendulum. He just remains quietly standing on his spot while the ball comes pendels back to him with great velocity.

There's no danger of any kind in his demonstration of his "faith" because it is not "faith" but rather knowledge. He knows that the ball will never hit him in the face. It follows from the law of the conservation of energy.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

There's no danger of any kind in his demonstration of his "faith" because it is not "faith" but rather knowledge. He knows that the ball will never hit him in the face. It follows from the law of the conservation of energy.

Not true. Knowledge involves the concept of justification of belief. Mere faith without justification is the antithesis of knowledge. That's the point of the video. I already explained this but you apparently chose to ignore what I wrote (or simply did not understand it). Here it is again:

This is the central problem of epistemology. What is knowledge? Many philosophers like the definition "justified true belief". This definition defines knowledge as a kind of belief. And this brings us back to the central point of the video which defines "faith" as "pretending to know things you don't know."

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

What one could say is that the professor has faith in his knowledge of the facts of physics, which is quite different from having faith in an unknown.

Hi Rose:

I am kind of jumping in the middle of this convo... I think you make an excellent point.... The definition of the word faith. The idea that faith is substance or real is also made by the definition given in the Bible. The issue is how that substance is realized. Jesus in His speach to doubting Thomas clearly says that Thomas believed because he had touched and felt the "evidence". Then Jesus says, John 20:29 "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

So the comparison here is one of hard evidence substantiated by the senses as fact and real truth believed in spite of the lack of "physical" evidence. The latter is true faith. The issue is not if the facts themselves are real and true but if there is a way to accept these REAL facts in the lack of physical, tactile evidence! Let's get this straight once and for all do not confuse the two "types" of faith. You do not even believe in GOD at all - any god! So for you to act like you can talk about faith simply because you in the past were a "Christian" is insane! I do not mean to be rude but you simply are not credible in your observations about true religion or spirituality. You do not really have a grasp on anything having to do with faith in the biblical sense of the word. Your perspective is far too jilted....